On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 12:59 +0100, Michael Paesold wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > The --single-transaction mode would apply even if the dump was created
> > > using an earlier version of pg_dump. pg_dump has *not* been altered at
> > > all. (And I would again add that the idea was not my own)
> >
> > I assume you mean this:
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-12/msg00257.php
> >
> > I guess with the ALTER commands I don't see much value in the
> > --single-transaction flag. I am sure others suggested it, but would
> > they suggest it now given our current direction.
>
> I just want to add that --single-transaction has a value of it's own. There
> were times when I wanted to restore parts of a dump all-or-nothing.
>
> This is possible with PostgreSQL, unlike many other DBM systems, because
> people like Tom Lane have invested in ensuring that all DDL is working
> without implicitly committing an enclosing transaction.
>
> Using pg_restore directly into a database, it is not possible to get a
> single transaction right now. One has to restore to a file and manually
> added BEGIN/COMMIT. Just for that I think --single-transaction is a great
> addition and a missing feature.
>
> I think more people have a use-case for that.
I did originally separate the --single-transaction patch for this
reason. I think its a valid patch on its own and its wrapped and ready
to go, with some deletions from the doc patch.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs